Its a good read.

Quoted: Quoted: you obviously werent paying much attention when you read. Well then how about you explain what I missed instead of being a dick about it?

yes, but i still resent how you were a dick by just implying that the book was a pile of shit because part of the story that was intertwined in it.

He didnt not shield himself from gunshots with a painting, he took it off the wall and threatened to destroy it if the watchman would not put his gun down, as he knew that the watchman valued these painting as much as anyone else and did not want to see one destroyed.  Big difference.  a bit far fetched? maybe.  but thats part of the NOVEL, not the historical evidence in the book.

I failed to see any "Pro-French" agenda in the book, it partly took place in France, but that was about it.

as far as pro feminism, it never showed that I think, I saw how the Christian church put down females over a long period of time, which has been historically shown.

Quoted: Post from Jeremiah_Johnson - as far as pro feminism, it never showed that I think, I saw how the Christian church put down females over a long period of time, which has been historically shown. Please tell me what secular government, other religion, or any human institution did not 'put down women' with equal gusto over the past several millenia? At least in the Founding Scriptures of Our Faith said without equivocation that in the Kingdom of God there was neither male nor female..... The fact that others came behind the Early Church and may have set it upon an anti-female course, is only of historical significance! It is NOT Christian Doctrine! Eric The(Thankfully)Hun

Id have to go home and actually get the book out and check the bookmark, but it was in their, and Ill try and find it somewhere on the net tonight...  of course, not everything on the net is true, but when I researched the statements put forth in this book, I did find more to this point... give me a bit.

Just finished it last week; it was an easy, entertaining read... about on par with "The Celestine Prophecy" and "The Tenth Insight".    

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: you obviously werent paying much attention when you read. Well then how about you explain what I missed instead of being a dick about it? yes, but i still resent how you were a dick by just implying that the book was a pile of shit because part of the story that was intertwined in it.

OK. I'm sorry. The book was not a pile of shit. It sold billions of copies so obviously it was a good book.

He didnt not shield himself from gunshots with a painting, he took it off the wall and threatened to destroy it if the watchman would not put his gun down, as he knew that the watchman valued these painting as much as anyone else and did not want to see one destroyed.  Big difference.  a bit far fetched? maybe.  but thats part of the NOVEL, not the historical evidence in the book.

It was completely far-fetched, so much so that I put it down.

I failed to see any "Pro-French" agenda in the book, it partly took place in France, but that was about it. as far as pro feminism, it never showed that I think, I saw how the Christian church put down females over a long period of time, which has been historically shown.

I have a habit of AGGRESIVELY reading between the lines, because everyone has an agenda. The author did not make France the setting in order to show how dumb the French are. In many places there were sympathetic things said about the French. And there were many sympathetic things towards women and condescending things about men in that book. In the end, I couldn't give it any more of my time.

Here's a better book I just finished:

Old Man's War (amazon.com)

Ack! How could we let this fall off the first page of the GD? sheesh.... hehe

Someone offered to let me borrow thiers, maybe one day I'll read it.

It was a fun read that might have some facts right, but one has to remember-

It's a work of fiction!

I do think there MIGHT Be something to the theory of the Holy Grail=MM, Jesus had Children, etc. It would not surprise me if it's true, as believing Christ as the Son of God is a matter of faith.

But..in the meantime, I will leave the whole argument for the Xtians and Historians

I refuse to read the book.  I understand enough of the concept behind the book to know that its purpose is to undermine ones faith in the Holy nature of Christ.

"Also dicusses how real knowledgable Christians know the Jesus was not a "god" or immortal being, but a mortal profet who became a martyr. Most religious people just cant seem to handle the idea, however, as its not what they have been incorrectly taught their entire life."

...I feel sorry for anyone that buys into this.  You've just explained away your chance at salvation.  One that believes this isn't a knowledgable Christian, they aren't even a Christian at all.

As for MM and JC being married, no it isn't a new theory.  I think thats found is some apocrypha writtings.  Its certainly not the only wild story of Jesus thats found in that sort of writting.  This is a reason that members of the early Church took the initative to look at all of these writtings and seprate the wheat from the chaff and cannonize the correct books that we now call the Holy Bible.

I'm a scientist by training, as such I've struggled with my faith and making sense of it from a scientific stand point.  Here's what I've come up with, I believe in God and I believe in the devil.  I think that the devil seeks to use knowledge and science to make us so prideful of ourselves that we explain away God.  I think that extends to Christ.  If he can make you think about this too much and convince you that Jesus was just a prophet and not the Son of God, then he's won.  You no longer have a path to salvation.  Thats why I think book like the Da Vinci Code are not designed to entertain but rather to cause souls to be lost.



 

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: INCOMING! Thats what I figured, any devout Christian is going to flame to next tuesday, but all the points were historically accurate so I really dont consider any of the people that will say, "That book was all bullshit." with high regard. J_J, dont talk about this book like it's some kind of serious historical study.  It is a fictional novel. I'm not a Christian, but it really bugs me when people use a pop novel to discredit something as serious real and deep like the Christian faith or the Catholic Church.

This is EXACTLY what I was gonna post.

And I have read the book.  Good read, but it is a work of FICTION.

TXL

Quoted: Please disregard ETH on this thread, he still has his blinders on.

LOL

I read the book, my money is on ETH.

TXL

Quoted: Anyone else ever read this?  I didnt think it would interest me, but I read my grandpa's copy and loved it. Anyone else read it?

Read Holy blood, Holy Grail...it's where he got the idea.

1. The "gnostic gospels" are absolute horse poop. They were not "supressed" by the church. Gnositicism goes back to the days of the Apostles when people wandered from the faith delivered by the Apostles about Christ. Paul clearly confronts gnosticism in his letter to the Corinthian church:

"12Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. 14And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. 15Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up--if in fact the dead do not rise. 16For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. 17And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! 18Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable."

1st Corinthians 15

This passage clearly challenges early gnostic perversions of the faith, namely that there was no physical resurrection of Christ. Paul clearly rebukes this teaching, and points out that the whole of Christianity depends on Christ's being the virgin born son of God, sinless, and having been literally put to death and resurrected on the 3rd day.

Paul's doctrine was 100% in line with the gospel taught by Peter, James, John, Matthew, Mark and Luke. The writings of the early church fathers like Polycarp, Clement, Justin and others continue the condemnation of the gnostic ideas as perversions of the truth that were damnable to men's souls.

Gnosticism is not some "secret" understanding of Christianity. It is a hideous lie and has been exposed as such from the very earliest days of the Christian faith. It is true that gnosticism was adhered to by a great many people who considered themselves "christian", but the writings of the GENUINE Apostles clearly demonstrates that they were NOT Christians, merely people making up their own theology with a loose association with Christ.

This applies to the gnostic "gospels", and to all the other "secret gospels" (gospel of Thomas, etc...) out there that portray a different Jesus than was clearly delivered by the GENUINE Apostles of Jesus Christ.  

It is true that many people believed these lies. But these people were not Christians and they did not have some secret understanding that undermines the authority of the Bible. All they had were their own opinions mixed with the poison philosophy of willfully blind men. They made up their own faith, not accepting faith as delivered by Christ and the Apostles.


2. Christianity has nothing to do with mysogeny. That tired old canard has been raised over and over again because the scriptures do teach that wives are to submit themselves to their husbands. This is a true doctrine. But EQUALLY true is the idea that the wife is to be LOVED AS CHRIST LOVED THE CHURCH AND GAVE HIMSELF FOR HER. That one simple command carries with it the obligation of the man in the relationship to exhibit the charachter of Christ in his relationship with his wife, which is a very high standard indeed.

Nowhere in scripture is there license from God for the man to be a domestic Hitler.

It is true that damnable doctrines blaming women for lust and the fall of mankind have been a part of the history of the church. That is explainable by the fact that churches are made up of people, and people are made up of stupid. The Pharisees had God's law, but they used the parts of God's law they liked to do what they already wanted to do in the first place, which is why Jesus was so ticked off at them.

There are 2 types of people in Christianity: Those that seek to preach the Word with the mind and heart of Christ, and those who seek to use scripture as a weapon to promote their own agenda. For a long period in Christian history group number 2 was in charge. And that is why we see the outlawing of reading scripture by "the church" because these evil men feared that their power base would be undone if people were able to read the scriptures for themselves and discover the truth.

That is why these evil men worked so hard to persecute anyone who didn't follow their shallow orthodoxy, and sought to kill men like Tyndale, Firth, Luther and others who had the temerity to challenge their attempt to pervert the truth. When the word was published in common language, it suddenly became very clear that the Word of God condemned the men who were running around claiming to be His servants.

These evil men are to blame for the evils they perpetrated upon the world and the persecution and murder of genuine Christians. The Bible offers them no refuge and is quite pointed in its judgement of them. Christ said you will know them by their fruits, and these men had rotten fruits.

That means they were NOT Christians. They had no legitimate claim to the blood of Christ because they had absolutely none of the charachter of Christ. Their pronouncements and doctrine were completely and utterly against the Word of God and the faith delivered by the Apostles. These men were evil, greedy, self-seeking, power hungry minions who hijacked the name of Christ as a cover for the evil they wished to work in the world.

You cannot condemn the name of Christ or the Bible or the genuine Christian faith based on the actions of evil men whose entire existence was in diametric opposition to the charachter, work, and word of Christ merely because these evil men decided to call themselves "christian".

There are RINOs that we all know of and despise. They claim to be Republicans and claim to stand for fiscal responsibility and freedom, but we all know that they are a worse liberal than any democrat. Similiarly there are CINOs, people who profess Christ but have NO CHRISTIAN FRUIT in their life whatsoever.

These people cannot be judged as Christian because the very Christ they claim condemns their self-seeking life.

The God of the Bible used women mightily (Deborah? Esther? Ruth? Does any of this ring a bell?) and demanded that they be treated with respect and love. Evil men perverted God's design of the marriage covenant into some sort of domestic slavery that was never God's intent, and His word is clear in its condemnation of it.

Yes, it is a work of fiction and should be taken with a grain of salt.  However, just because it puts forth a theory that isn't in line with Christianity doesn't mean it is trying to undermine someone's faith.

If you were so sure of your faith, you wouldn't worry about a little fiction novel questioning your faith, now would you?

Quoted: Yes, it is a work of fiction and should be taken with a grain of salt.  However, just because it puts forth a theory that isn't in line with Christianity doesn't mean it is trying to undermine someone's faith.

I have not read the book. I did, however, see the old ghosts of gnosticism and mysogeny raise their ugly heads again in this thread, and I will not let those stand without confronting them with the truth. People, unfortunately, hear about "secret gospels" and then try and use it as an excuse despite the fact that these gnostic perversions were taught against from the days of the Apostles and were thoroughly discredited then.

If you were so sure of your faith, you wouldn't worry about a little fiction novel questioning your faith, now would you?

I am sure in my faith. I have traveled the road of life loathing the idea of Christianity, repeating all the old stale arguements against it, but being shown wrong time and time again. At long last I stopped kicking against the bricks and got saved.

My faith is sure. I know in Whom I have believed.

But there are many out there who have not decided for or against Christ. Am I supposed to sit idly by while the waters of truth are muddied by wild eyed theories and baseless charges against the faith? Hardly.

"15But sanctify the Lord God[d] in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you"

1st Peter 3:15

"Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. "

Jude 1:3

Quoted: It is about codes that learned people in the Renaissance left disputing the Catholic & fundamentalist views of Christ. If anyone has read up on the early Church and the great debates they had deciding which of the Gospels to use many Christians would be surprised. I have no problem with the idea that Jesus was mortal, Mark even calls him the "Son of Man".

Christ was mortal in the sense that He was the second person of the Godhead manifested in human flesh. This means that Christ was at the same time both God and as human as I am. He ate, drank, slept, sweated, burped, laughed, cried, smelled, tasted, and touched just like I do. He bled and died just like I did.

But on the 3rd day He was risen by order of the Father, and His once human flesh was transformed into a new flesh that is completely unlike anything we have ever seen. Time and space are completely irrelevant to Christ's glorified body, which isn't suprising as time and space could never restrict Almighty God except that He allow it for a season.

Christ was mortal in the sense that He had a human body that died. But Christ pre-existed creation and the incarnation as the only begotten of the Father, and He was resurrected to ascend back to His rightful place of Glory after His resurrection.

Christ IS eternal, but WAS mortal for a short period of a little more than 33 years.

The mystery of the incarnation.

I read it . . . .

And loved it.

If anything, it made my belief of Jesus being my Savior STRONGER.

I didn't care for the worshipping of Mary AT ALL.

I found it a very well written MURDER MYSTERY. Yes, fiction.

It did NOT shake my faith in anyway.

I know who the Savior of mankind is. So, a novel is NOT going to make me question my faith.

I DO feel that there was all kinds of changing of doctrine to control the masses as certain churches grew in power. I found that part of the book interesting.

I have heard that "Demons and Angels"(title unsure) is a better read. Maybe I'll check it out in the future.

Uncle Al

Eric,

I DO agree with what you said.

I was amazed at the rancor that some people felt toward the book as I read it.

I don't believe that a lot of people understand the difference between a novel and the inspired word of God.

A lot of people are swayed(sp?) by every new wave of 'pop' religious thought.

As far as the founding fathers goes . . . . . . there is so much evidence as to howmuch they believed in the "Divine Providence" that guided their forming this country. 'Modern' history continues to belittle these men and their beliefs in God.

It is truly SAD!

Uncle Al

Quoted: Quoted: Anyone else ever read this?  I didnt think it would interest me, but I read my grandpa's copy and loved it. Anyone else read it? Read Holy blood, Holy Grail...it's where he got the idea.

Ugh...

There is more than one way to skin a cat and there is more than one book to read on this subject. Holy Blood, Holy Grail is mainly about the Priory of Sion and their research into that and is actually rather boring. Their theory about Jesus and the Magdelene comprises only the last four chapters or so. It seemed to me that almost every other word in that bit of the book was THEORY. They state over and over and over again that it is a theory. The same authors wrote a subsequent book called The Messianic Legacy. I haven't read that one yet.

Now, for those of you who are interested in further reading on the subject, but don't have the time or inclination to invest in the bunch of books I'm about to reccomend, I suggest a book called Secrets of the Code. It's the only one that I reccomend because it is the only one which takes excerpts of the books Brown actually used for his research and interviews with the authors of those books. The list of contributors includes:

Diane Apostolos-Cappadona * Michael Baigent * Esther de Boer * David Downie * Betsy Eble Bart Ehrman * Timothy Freke * Peter Gandy * Deirdre Good * Susan Haskins * Katherine L. Jansen * Karen King * Richard Leigh * Henry Lincoln * James Martin, S.J. * Richard McBrien * Laura Miller * Sherwin B. Nuland * Elaine Pagels * Lynn Picknett * Clive Prince * James Robinson * Simon Singh * Margaret Starbird * David van Biema * Kenneth Woodward

For those of you who would like to read the books for yourselves (which is what I always reccomend. Don't let anyone's else's opinion color how you think. Make up your own mind) here's a short list just off the top of my head:

Lynne Picknett, Clive Prince- The Templar Revelation
Margaret Starbird- The Woman with the Alabaster Jar
Holy Blood, Holy Grail, The Messianic Legacy, The Holy Place (which Lincoln wrote by himself about Saunier and Renne-le-Chateau)
Elaine Pagels- The Gnostic Gospels, Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas
Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy- The Jesus Mysteries, Jesus and the Lost Goddess
Stephan Hoeller- Jung and the Lost Gospels, Gnosticism

Give me more time and a night at work and that list will grow. I need to look more up anyway. I'm the one that decides what goes on our Da Vinci Code endcap at the store. I need to fill it up more.

Can someone actually list one of these "respected scholars" that believes the data in The Da Vinci Code is historically accurate?

Need more bible verses

www.crisismagazine.com/september2003/feature1.htm

My wife read it a while ago and liked it, and someone gave us the illustrated version for XMas so I read it.  It was certainly a page-turner, but at the end the plot did not make much sense.

The problem with a lot of these theories is that they all suppose that anything written by some idiot centuries ago or some belief or practice by some cultic offshoot of Christianity is just as valid as the Christian faith outlined in the Bible, which is about the most rediculous assumption in the world.

In every culture, in every faith, there is a mainstream. And from that mainstream come hundreds, thousands, millions of different ideas. But that doesn't mean that any of those ideas are accurate representations of the faith or culture being discussed. And anthropologists and historians recognize this....

Until you start talking about Christianity, in which case they give every practice or belief credit for being as Christian as the things taught by the Apostles.

It is intellectually dishonest and academically bankrupt to attempt such a thing.

Google for it and see what you come up with. Its a bunch of hogwash.

Well, there's already a Farenhype 9/11 type DVD out, which I assume will purport to "debunk" whatever is in the book.  I saw it at Blockbuster Sat. night...

Quoted: "All claims in the book are historically accurate."

Forgive me, I've only made it to this post, but that quote is untrue and as such virtually the entire book is fiction in similar manner to The Bair Witch Project.

Just because it says it is a 'true story' does not make it so.

-LS

Quoted: Quoted: "All claims in the book are historically accurate." Forgive me, I've only made it to this post, but that quote is untrue and as such virtually the entire book is fiction in similar manner to The Bair Witch Project. Just because it says it is a 'true story' does not make it so. -LS

How can I forgive you for that?  you just made youself look like a moron.  I never said the story was true.  The the accounts of historical events USED IN THE BOOK AS PART OF THE PLOT have been researched by scientists and many believe them to be true.  This has already been stated many times over. Read the whole thread before making yourself look that dumb.

Sorry but...it's apostate tripe.

I bought it last year for my hub, and he wasn't interested. I returned it, but wish I had read it.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: "All claims in the book are historically accurate." Forgive me, I've only made it to this post, but that quote is untrue and as such virtually the entire book is fiction in similar manner to The Bair Witch Project. Just because it says it is a 'true story' does not make it so. -LS How can I forgive you for that?  you just made youself look like a moron.  I never said the story was true.  The the accounts of historical events USED IN THE BOOK AS PART OF THE PLOT have been researched by scientists and many believe them to be true.  This has already been stated many times over. Read the whole thread before making yourself look that dumb.

No one of credible scientific credentials would come close to putting their good name on the line by confirming the claim "All claims in the book are historically accurate."

Your assertions are patently false and you are as much a liar as Dan Brown.

Enjoy living in your delusion and good day.

-LS

Quoted: Can someone actually list one of these "respected scholars" that believes the data in The Da Vinci Code is historically accurate?

That's pretty much what I did if you had bothered reading the last post above yours. My suggestion would be to go and read the stuff for yourself and decide whether or not you respect them. Make up your own mind.

For everyone else:

Almost every major and minor religious system (with the possible exceptions of Hindu and Buddhism and I'll explain why that is later) have their othodoxy and their mystics. Jew have Kabalists, the Muslims have the Sufi... The Christians have the Gnostics.

Let this puppy get to page 5 (I promised myself that I would be nice until page 5) and I'll go to town.

Yeah I read the Da Vinci Code and enjoyed it.  Is it historical? Maybe, though alot more proof one way or another would sure be nice.  What I find ironic is that we're talking about a first century Jew whose very existence is questionable.  Some folks have no objection to saying he was born of a virgin, turned water into wine, walked on water, raised the dead, fed a "multitude" with a few fishes and loaves, was himself resurrected from the dead,  and floated off to heaven on a cloud, but let somebody suggest that the guy procreated and these same folks start yelling "blasphemy!".

Frankly, the procreation part is the most credible part of the whole story I've heard concerning Jesus.

Quoted: Quoted: Can someone actually list one of these "respected scholars" that believes the data in The Da Vinci Code is historically accurate? That's pretty much what I did if you had bothered reading the last post above yours. My suggestion would be to go and read the stuff for yourself and decide whether or not you respect them. Make up your own mind. For everyone else: Almost every major and minor religious system (with the possible exceptions of Hindu and Buddhism and I'll explain why that is later) have their othodoxy and their mystics. Jew have Kabalists, the Muslims have the Sufi... The Christians have the Gnostics. Let this puppy get to page 5 (I promised myself that I would be nice until page 5) and I'll go to town.

I'd like to hear what you have to say.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Can someone actually list one of these "respected scholars" that believes the data in The Da Vinci Code is historically accurate? That's pretty much what I did if you had bothered reading the last post above yours. My suggestion would be to go and read the stuff for yourself and decide whether or not you respect them. Make up your own mind. For everyone else: Almost every major and minor religious system (with the possible exceptions of Hindu and Buddhism and I'll explain why that is later) have their othodoxy and their mystics. Jew have Kabalists, the Muslims have the Sufi... The Christians have the Gnostics. Let this puppy get to page 5 (I promised myself that I would be nice until page 5) and I'll go to town. I'd like to hear what you have to say.

Well.... What do you want to know?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Can someone actually list one of these "respected scholars" that believes the data in The Da Vinci Code is historically accurate? That's pretty much what I did if you had bothered reading the last post above yours. My suggestion would be to go and read the stuff for yourself and decide whether or not you respect them. Make up your own mind. For everyone else: Almost every major and minor religious system (with the possible exceptions of Hindu and Buddhism and I'll explain why that is later) have their othodoxy and their mystics. Jew have Kabalists, the Muslims have the Sufi... The Christians have the Gnostics. I was hoping to hear you expound on: "Almost every major and minor religious system (with the possible exceptions of Hindu and Buddhism and I'll explain why that is later) have their othodoxy and their mystics. Jew have Kabalists, the Muslims have the Sufi... The Christians have the Gnostics. Let this puppy get to page 5 (I promised myself that I would be nice until page 5) and I'll go to town. " Let this puppy get to page 5 (I promised myself that I would be nice until page 5) and I'll go to town.

I had assumed you were holding back some information for fear of causing agitation.  I'd like to hear what you're holding back.  

If I'm reading this completely wrong, just say so and I'll drop it.  

Thanks.

I haven't read it.  However, from what Ive read about it, it seems like a well written work of FICTION.

I'm looking forward to reading this book.  From what I hear, it's a very interesting read, but doesn't cast a favorable light on the Catholic Church.  As to whether or not it has some truth or is all fiction, I don't know enough about the book to say one way or another.

I read it in 3 nights, I thought it was a good book. The History Channel has a special on it where Dan Brown was put up to defend his theory.

They had a good interview with one of the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail.... "I neither believe nor disbelieve... It is merely a hypothesis."

Quoted: I read it in 3 nights, I thought it was a good book. The History Channel has a special on it where Dan Brown was put up to defend his theory. They had a good interview with one of the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail.... "I neither believe nor disbelieve... It is merely a hypothesis."

That wasn't the History Channel, it was the National Geographic channel. And, as I said, throughout that portion of the book, the word THEORY was used profusely. It's a theory and they're not portraying it to be anything different.

I read it and liked it.  

Quoted: 3) (and most important) It's a fucking NOVEL. I find it hysterical that those who claim that the Bible is entirely FICTIONAL and therefore cannot be trusted somehow find a NOVEL to be historically accurate!

first of all its only a novel because the the charactors and events are FICTIONAL thats what a novel is about fictional charactors and events

Why do people insist on discrediting fiction?

Most people here love the book Unintended Consequences, not because it is fiction, but because it is true on several levels.

Fiction does not necessarily denote falsehood.

Quoted: Yeah I read the Da Vinci Code and enjoyed it.  Is it historical? Maybe, though alot more proof one way or another would sure be nice.  What I find ironic is that we're talking about a first century Jew whose very existence is questionable.  Some folks have no objection to saying he was born of a virgin, turned water into wine, walked on water, raised the dead, fed a "multitude" with a few fishes and loaves, was himself resurrected from the dead,  and floated off to heaven on a cloud, but let somebody suggest that the guy procreated and these same folks start yelling "blasphemy!". Frankly, the procreation part is the most credible part of the whole story I've heard concerning Jesus.

Ive wanted to say that forever